T) 'BVV LIBRARY OF CONGRESS V 021 547 730 7 D 525 .B74 Copy 1 m ' "The Causeless War" AND ITS LESSONS FOR US A STATEMENT BY WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN PUBLISHED IN PARTS JUNE 16-17-18, 1915 ^2 5 THE WAR AS IT IS, AND ITS INJURY TO NEUTRALS 1 shall tomorrow discuss the origin of the war and the reasons which led the nations of Europe to march, as if blindfolded, into the bloody conflict which now rests like a pall over the fairest parts of the Old World ; today let us consider the war as it is and the injury it is doing to the neutral nations. The war is without a precedent in the populations represented ; in the number of combatants in the field, in daily expenditures; in the eifectiveness of the implements employed; in the lists of dead and wounded ; in the wide-spread sutfering caused and in the intensity of the hatreds aroused. Xo class or condition is exempt from tlie burdens which this war imposes ; the rich bear excessive taxation and the poor are sorely oppressed; the resources of today are devoured and the products of tomorrow are mortgaged. No age is immune. The first draft was upon the strong and vigorous, but the govern- ments are already calling for those above and below the ordinary enlistment zone. The war's afflictions are visited uixm women as well as upon men — upon wives who await in vain a husl^and's return, and upon motliers who must surrender up the sons whose support is the natural reliance of declining years. Even children are its victims — children innocent of wrong and incapable of doing harm. By war's dread decree, babes come into the world, father- less at their birth, while the bodies of their sires are burned like worthless stubble in the fields over which the Grim Eeaper has passed. The most extreme illustrations collected from history to })rove the loathsomeness of war are overshadowed by new indictments written daily; the most distressing pictures drawn by the imag- ination are siirpassed by the realities of this indescribable contest. Surely we behold "the pestilence that walketh in darkitess and the destruction that Avasteth at noon-day 1" Xeutral nations can not look on with inditference — the ties that bind them together are too strong, the relationship too inti- mate. This is especially true of the t^nited States. We have a •jf'omposite population — every nation of Europe having con- tril)uted liberally to our citizenshi]i. These, onr countrymen, themselves born abroad or immediately desi-ended from foreign born ancestors, can not but take a lively interest in the conduct as well as in the results of the war and a still larger circle shares the concern of those directly connected. Xot a soldier falls on either side but the sorrow expressed in his home finds an echo at some fireside in the United States. But aside from sentimental considerations, neutral nations suffer serious disturbance because of the war. Duelists, when dueling was in fashion, were carefrd to select a ])lace where they 4 could settle their personal differences without harm to nnoffend- ing bystanders, but warring nations can not, no matter how ear- nestly they try, avoid injury to neutrals. As the noisome odors of a slaughter house, carried on the breeze, pollute the air in every direction, so the evil influences emanating from these wide extended battlefields taint the atmosphere of the whole political world. War is an international nuisance. T*^early every neutral nation finds new domestic problems thrust upon it and old problems made more diflficult. No American citizen can note without deep concern the manner in which war questions have intruded themselves into our politics — overshadowing economic issues and stimulating agitation in fav^" of enlarged appropriations for military and naval purposes. BusiMss is deranged and expensive readjustments made neces- sary, while commerce with foreign nations is seriously inter- rupted. Fluctuations in prices abroad ai'e reflected in the markets of the XTnited States; a fall of one cent in the price of cotton means tens of millions of dollars to om* prodiicers and merchants. Added to this freight rates and insurance ])remiums have been increased to cover the greater risks incident to war. S<3arcity of ships is one of the greatest commercial embarrass- ments caused by the war. We have depended largely \i])on for- eign ships to carry our commerce and we could not but suffer when the merchantmen of one side were driven from the sea and a part of the merchant fleet of the other side was withdrawn for government use. The neutral nations are i)ut to a great expense to preserve neutrality and are constantly in danger of being eml)roiled in the war Avithont intention or fault on their part. The rules of international law seem to have been made for tlie nations at war rather than for the nations at ])eace. It is almost impossible to alter these rules during the war, l)ecause any material change, affecting as it would tiie interests of bel- ligerents, woidd be a seeming violation of neutrality. .Vs soon as peace returns there will l)e a demand for an intei'uational conference on the sulgect. The presumi)tion shoidd then be given to peace, for peace, not war, is tbt' noi-inal condition. Tf nations are determined to fight, they should as far as |)ossible l)ear the burden themselves and not be permitted to transfer it to the nations wliich a\oid war by i-esorting to reason instead of force. Tender the stress and strain of the titanic struggle in whicli they are engaged, each side has felt itself justified in encroach- ing upon the rights of neutrals. The ocean highways, tlie cora- nu)n property of all, have Ixmmi to some extent appropriated for war purposes and delicate dipbunatic rpu^stions are forced ujjou the neutral nations. Just at this finu' when ilu'se questions are most acute the belligerent governments are least able to deal with them with the calmness and poise which their great importance demands. N"o wonder everv neutral nation is increasinglv anxious for the war to end; but of all tlio neutral nations ours has the most reason to pray for the return of peace — most reason to set its face resolutely against participation in this war. This nation, the head of the neutral group and the sincere friend of all the belligerents, is in duty hound to set an example in patience and self-restraint. In alt history no such opportunity has ever come to any other nation as that which is destined to come to the United States. In all history no other peace-maker has ever been in position to claim so rich a blessing as that which will l)e pronounced upon our President when the time for mediation comes — as come it must. A FALSE PHILOSOPHY, AND ITS NATURAL RESULTS The conliict now raging in Europe has been descril)ed as "The Causeless War," but since no one would be bold enough to lay the blame for such an unholy situation upon an over- ruling Providence, it must find its origin in acts for which man, and man alone, is responsible. It is not a race war; on the contrary, the races are quite inexplicably mixed. Latin joins with Saxon; the Frank is the ally of the Slav; while in the opposing ranks, Teuton and Turk fight side by side. N^either is it a religious war. On the Bosphorus the cross and the crescent make common cause; Protestant Kaiser and Catholic Emperor have linked their fortunes together and hurl their veteran legions against an army in which are indiscrim- inately mingled communicants of the Greek Church, of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England. Nor yet is it a rivalry between families. The leading actors in this unprecedented tragedy are related l)y blood, but kinship seems to be a negligible factor — it explains neither friendships nor enmities. No; race, religion and familv, each with many wars to answer for, can plead not guilty in the present inquiry. So far as can be judged, there appears upon the surface no cause that by any known standard can ])e regarded as adequate for such a cata- clysm as we are now witnessing. The notes that passed from chancellery to chancellery were couched in most friendly language. Tliese notes could not have been intended to deceive. Sovereigns visited each other and were received with every evidence of cordiality and good will. This hospitality could not have been insincere. Each ruler declared that he did not wish war; would they all say this if an adeqxuite cause for war had actually existed? Tlicy have all denied responsibility for the war — would they have done so if they had regarded (be war as either necessary or desirable? But there is even Itcttor proof; aye, indisj)utal)le proof, that 6 no sufficient cause existed — viz., the conclusion to be drawn from inaction. Would not these rulers have busied themselves trying to save their subjects by the eradication of the cause, had they known of the existence of such cause? Would they have spent their time in social festivities and in exchanging compliments, had they known that they were on the brink of war? It is incon- ceivable! It would be a gross libel on them — one and all — to charge such a wanton disregard of their sacred duty. What then was the cause? If I have correctly analyzed the situation, the war is the natural result of a false philosophy. Theories of life are invisible, but they control for good or for evil. They enter our very Ijcing and may be as deadly to the moral man as germs of disease, taken into the body, are deadly to the physical man. The fundamental jirecept of this false ])hilosophy is that "might makes right." It is not proclaimed now as loudly as it once was, but it is often acted upon in par- ticular cases by those who would be unwilling to endorse it as a general principle. The individual makes this maxim his excuse for violating three commandments that stand in his way; this maxim also leads nations to violate these same three comnumdments for the same purpose, l)ut on a larger scale. Strange that men should fail to apply to nations the moral ])i-inciples which are now so generally applied to the individual units of a nation ! The tendency is to condemn the violation of these command- ments, not in proportion to the injury done, but rather in inverse proportion. 'No one will dispute the validity of the injunction against covetousness as long as the object coveted is of little value or not greatly desired ; l)ut the last and all inclusive speci- fication, viz., "or anything that is thy neighl)or''s," is sometimes interi)reted by nations to excejit ajieighl)or's vineyard or a ueigh- l)or's territory. Covetousness turns to might as the principle to l)e invoked, and the greater the unlawful desire, the firmer the faith in the false princi])le. Conquest is the word used to describe the means employed for securing the thing desired, if the force is employed by a nation, and conquest violates the commandments. "Tliou slialt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill." By what. so])histry can rulers convince themselves that, while petit larceny is criminal, grand larcenv is jiatriotic: that while it is rei)rehensible for one man to kill another for liis money, it is glorious for one nation to ])ut to the sword the inhalutants of another nation in order to extend boundaries? It is a mockery of moral distinctions to hang one man for taking the life of another, either for money or in revenge, and then make a hero of another man who M-ades "through slaughter to a throne, and shuts the doors of mercy on numkind."* As in the case of the individual, the violation of the com- mandments — Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal, and Thou slialt not kill, are usuallv traceable to tlie violation of tlie first great commandment, "Thou slialt have no other Gods be- fore me"— that is, to the putting of self ))el'ore service of the Creator; so the violation of these commanchnents by nations is not always but usually due to selfishness— the putting of sup- posed material advantages before obedience to the Divine law. War is occasionally altruistic in purpose and the soldier always exhibits unselfishness of a high order, but, as a rule, conflicts are waged for selfish ends. The individual finds that Jehovah's justice can not be evaded; for wrong-domg works its own punishment on the wrongdoer m the form of perverted character, even when he escai)es the penalties of human law. The nation is as powerless to repeal or to ignore with impunity the laws of God— "though hand join in hand they shall not be unpunished." _ If I have made it clear that the doctrine that might makes right is the most common cause of war, we may pass to the consideration of a maxim quite sure to l)e applied in war, namely,, that "Like cures like" — the theorv upon which retalia- tion rests. The two are so closely allied that it is almost' inevitable that those who endorse the former will resort to the latter— one repre- sents the spirit of evil, the other its most familiar manifesta- tion. Retaliation is rivalry in wrong-doing — a neck and neck race toward the l)ottomless pit. And yet there are many believers in the gospel of force who have brouglit themselves to think that cruelty can be cured by greater crueltv— tliat the only way to win an antagonist away from inhuman acts is to surpass him in inhumanities. Absurdity of absurdities ! But miglit must find a pretext for arming itself; and what is the pretext? There was a time when men openly advocated war as a thing to be desired ; commended it to each generation as a sort of tonic to tone up the moral svstem and prevent degeneracy, but we have passed that dav. N'ow, all join in the chorus for peace.' And how, according to the jingoes, shall peace be insured? "By ])rei)aredness," "sij^ these sons of Mars. Prepare, all prepare; equip vourselves witli the most modern implements of destruction ; arm, drill : get ]e;idv; and then stand with finger on a hair trigger musket and preserve peace— yes, preserve it until some one, by accideni or design, gives the signal— then all fall upon each other with cries for blood. Preparedness is the kindling; opportunity i^ the match. We dare not trust the |)eace of the world to those who spend their time in getting ready for wars that should never come. Half the energy employed in preparing for war would efi:'ectually ))revent war if used in propagating the jirineiples which make tor peace. Fnstead of preventing war, preparedness provokes war, because It IS ]mi)ossible to coerce the people into beai-ing the burdens ini-ulent to continuous and increasing preparation without culti- vating hatred as if it were a national virtue. There must be some 8 one to fear: some other preparing nation that must be repre- sented as plotting for war. Hate sets np sham standards of lionor and converts every wound into a festering sore ; hate misunderstands ; hate misinter- prets; hate maligns its supposed adversary, while every con- tractor, battleship builder and manufacturer of munitions of war applauds. How can preparedness prevent war if all prepare? Each step taken by one nation toward more complete preparedness excites the other nations to additional purchases and new levies, until all have exhausted their productive industries and menaced their moral progress. The doctrine that preparedness will prevent war will not stand the test of logic and the conflagration in Europe shows that it Tails when tested by experience. If any nation is without excuse for entering into a mad rivalry with the belligerent nations in pre]:>aration for war it is the I'nited States. We are i)rotected on either side by thousands of miles of ocean and this protection is worth more to us than any number of battleships. We have an additional protection in the fact, known to everyone, that we have the men with whom to form an army of defense if we are ever attacked ; and it is known also that we have the money, too — more money than we would have had if all the surplus earnings of the people had lieen invested in armament. We not only do not need additional preparation, but we are fortunate in not liaving it, since it seems impossible for a nation to have what is called preparedness with- out having along with it a disposition to use its preparedness on the slightest provocation. The leading participants in the present war are the nations that were best prepared, and I fear it would have l^een difficult for ns to keep out of this war if we had been as Avell ])repared as they. Happy for our nation that we have in the White House at this time a President who believes in setting the old world a good example, instead of following the ])ad example which it sets in this matter ! What an unspeakable misfortune it would have been if, in such an hour as this, the nation had bct'u under the leader- ^ship of a President inflamed by the false philosophy which has plunged Europe into the abyss of war I }) THE WAY OUT A ROAD TO PERMANENT PEACE Having considered tlie war as it is and the injury which it "does neutrals, and then the origin of the war and the causes wliicli led up to it. ^\■e are now ready to make inquiry as to the way out, that is. the means by wliich hostilities can be Ijrought to an end and permanent peace restored. To state in a sen- tence the pro{)ositions which I shall proceed to elalwrate: Mediation is the means, provided by international agreement, tinough which the l)elligerent nations can l)e brought into con- ference: tinu' for the investigation of all disputes is the means by which future wars can be averted and the cultivation of in- teriuitional friendship is the means by which tlie desire for war •can be rooted out. What are the nations fighting about? No one seems to know, or if anyone does know he has not taken the public into his confidence. We have been told, in a general way. that the Allies are fighting against ''militarism"' and in defense •of "popular government." and that Germany is fighting in de- fense of "German culture" and for the nation's right to "a place in the sun.'' But these generalities are so differently inter- ]U'eted as not to convey a definite idea. When the President •oifered mediation at the very beginning of the struggle the answers which he received from the various rulers were so much alike that one telegram might have served for all. The sub- stance of each answer was 'T did not want war and I am not to blame for the war that now exists.'' But that was ten months ago; the question now is not whether those in authority in the belligerent nations did or did not want war then ; we may accept their answers as given in good faith, l)ut the important qiiestion is still unanswered. 'T did not want war" may have been deemed sufficient at the time the answers were given, but the real ques- tion is, Do you want war now? If not, why not say so? The months have dragged their bloody length along — each more terrible than the month before — and yet the crimson line of battle sways to and fro. each movement marked by dreadful loss of life. While warriors die and widows weep the sovereign rulers of the warring powers withhold the word that would sto]) the war. No chief of state has yet said "1 do not want war." No one in authority has yet publicly declared his willingness to state the terms ui)on which his nation is ready to negotiate peace. Are not these dying men and these sorrowing women ■entitled to know definitely for what their nation is fighting? Is it territory? Then how much territory and where is it located? Is it the avenging of a wrong done? Then how much more blood must be spilled to make atonement for the blood already shed? Some day accumulated suffering will overflow: some ■day the pent up anguish which this war is causing will find a \oice. Tlion. if not l)efore. the rulers in the war zone 10 will ]>ause to listen to the stern question '"Why do we die?" — the question which shakes thrones and marks the farthermost limits of arbitrary power. And is not the outside world entitled to know the price of peace? Must the neutrals bear the penalties which war neces- sarily visits upon them and yet remain in ignorance as to the issues at stake? Their trade is interru])te(l, their citizens are drowned, they are the victims of stray Indlets — have they no rioht to know what it is that, being done, will draw down the curtain on this dark tragedy? Has any nation a purpose for continuing this war which it does not dare to state to the world, or even to its own people? Surely neither side thinks it can annihilate the other. Great nations can not be exterminated — population can not be wii)e(l out l)y the sword. The combatants, even though the war may have made them heartless, will shrink from the task of carrying this slaughter l)eyond the point necessary to win a victory. And it must be remembered that war plans often miscarry. Predic- tions made at the beginning of the war have not been fulfilled. The British did not destroy the German fleet in a month, and Germany did not take Paris in two months, and the Russian army did not eat Christmas dinner in Berlin. But even if extermination were possible, it would be a crime against civiliza- tion which no nation or group of nations could afford to commit. If it is \andalism to destroy the finest specimens of man's workmanship, is it not sacrilege to engage in the wholesale de- struction of human beings — the supreme example of God's handi- work? We may find cases of seeming total depravity among in- dividuals, hut not in a nation or in a race. 'I'lie future has use for the peoples now at war: they have a necessary part in that destinv which mankind must work out together, regardless of these ebullitions of anger. The Lord miglit have made all fiowei-s of one kind, of one color and alike in fragrance — but He did not. And hrc'iiisc He did not, the world is uK^re attractive. Varietv. not anil'ormity, is the law among men as well as among the flowers. The nations which are activelv ]>artici])ating in this war are what they are l)ecause of struggles that have lasted for centuries. They differ in language, in institutions, in race char- acteristics and in national history, but together they constitnti' a great living Ixnujuet of surpassing beauty. -We'uuiy ])ut aside, therefore, as wholly im]>racficable. if not inconceivable, the thought that this war can continue until one side has annihilated the other. What then can be the pur- pose? The com])lete domination of JMirope by one nation oi- grou]) of nations? 'V]\o al)surdity of such a plan is only second to the absurdity of the thought that eithei' side can annihilati' the othci'. The woi-ld is not looking foi- a master; the day of the (h'spot is gone. The fufui'e will l)e gloomy indeed if the smaller nations must pass uncfer the yoke of any power or com- hination of nowcrs. The (piestion is not. Who shall dictate on land? or. Who shall dominate upon the sea? 'I'hese questions aic not piaclical ones. Tlic i-cal fpicstion is. not how a few can 11 lay burdens upon the rest, hut how all can work together as roui- rades and hrothers. Even if it were possible for one side to force the other side to its knees in supplication — even if it were possible for one side to write the terms of the treaty in blood and compel the other side to sign it. face downward and prostrate on the ground — it could not afford to do so; and unless the belligerents have read history to no purpose, they will not desire to do so. Time and again some nation, hoastful of its strength, has thought itself invincible,, but the ruins of these mistaken and misguided na- tions line the pathway along which the masses have marched to higher ground. Despotism has in it the seeds of death ; the spirit that leads a nation to aspire to a supremacy based on force is the spirit that destroys its hope of immortality. Only those who are unacquainted with the larger influences can place their sole reliance on the weajions used in physical warfare. They see only the things that arc transient and ephemeral ; they do not comprehend the higher truth that "the things that are seen are temporal ; the things that are unseen are eternal." Christian nations need to read again Christ's prayer upon the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." All the participants in this war have sinned enough to make them anxious to exhibit that forgiving spirit Avhich is the measure of the forgiveness which can be claimed. When can peace be restored? Any time — now, if the ])artici- ])ants are really weary of this war and ready for it to en(]. Tf any nation is not ready, let its ruler state in clear, distinct and definite terms the conditions upon which it is willing to agree to peace; then if an agreement is not reached, the blame for the continuance of the war will he upon those who make unreason- able demands. What can be done hy the advocates of peace? First. They can crystallize the sentiment in favor of peace into a coercive force, for public opinion at last controls the world. There is a work which the neutral nations can do ; they can offer mediation, jointly or severally. It is not an act of hostility, l)ut an act of friendshi]). The Hague Convention, to which all the governments are parties, expressly declares that the offer of mediation shall not be considered an unfriendly act. The dutv of offering mediation may seem to rest primarily upon the Fnited States, the largest of the neutral nations and the one most inti- mately Iiound 1)\- ties of blood to all the helligerents. The T"'^nited States did make an offer immediately after the war b(^- gan, hut why not again and again and again, until our offer or ■■^oiiie other offer is acce]>ted? Why not stand at the door and knock, as we would at the door of a friend if we felt that tlie friend was in need and that we could render a service? But our action or failure to act need not deter anv other neutral countrv from acting. This is not a time to stand on ceremony : if any other country, for any reason — no matter what that rea«on may be — is in a better position than we to tender its